Is David Hume a laughing zombie? Those are almost unheard of.
Griefers and Elite's Emerging Karma System
- Thread starter Delilah
- Start date
Is David Hume a laughing zombie? Those are almost unheard of.
Nah, David Hume was a philosopher who closely examined cause and effect.
He proposes that effect can never be proven before its actual occurrence, so the common conception of cause and effect being both proven valid as a definitive relationship is mistaken.
In another word, we always assume that the effect of a cause will occur, and the only proof we have is that it has always been that way.
However, for example, if certain properties were to change at a set time, it would defeat our common conception of cause and effect.
Long story short, ultimately Hume admits that there is likely a relationship like cause and effect, but nevertheless he stands his ground that our common understanding of cause and effect relies solely on our habituated assumption.
Last edited:
All I know for sure is that if I shine one of these beam laser thingamabobs at a ship long enough it eventually goes snap-crackle-pop.
... Because it has always been that way, and that is technically all the proof you can provide, which is what Hume tried to point out
I don't think any of these arguments benefit by the term griefer. A better term often used by the anti-social types themselves is salt miners.
If these people take pleasure from spoiling others precious leisure time purely to mine salt then the CandP system needs to address this. Failure to do so will send more to groups or solo or to abandon the game altogether.
None of these options are desirable. Groups have limits on the numbers of players they support, which offers even less opportunity for chance encounters. The biggest don't allow for any PVP outside of combat zones. Therefore piracy becomes a dead profession.
I do feel for the proper pirates like Gluttony Gang, who probably lose out the most by self proclaimed griefer groups. Half surprised they haven't tried to do something about that themselves.
I do think pirates need a new mechanic. Perhaps an increase in FSD cooldown coupled with weapons systems offline and no boost capability for 30 seconds to allow pirates to 'make demands' and encourage dialogue. Of course wings would need a delayed drop in too. Anyway this is for a different thread I'm sure.
If these people take pleasure from spoiling others precious leisure time purely to mine salt then the CandP system needs to address this. Failure to do so will send more to groups or solo or to abandon the game altogether.
None of these options are desirable. Groups have limits on the numbers of players they support, which offers even less opportunity for chance encounters. The biggest don't allow for any PVP outside of combat zones. Therefore piracy becomes a dead profession.
I do feel for the proper pirates like Gluttony Gang, who probably lose out the most by self proclaimed griefer groups. Half surprised they haven't tried to do something about that themselves.
I do think pirates need a new mechanic. Perhaps an increase in FSD cooldown coupled with weapons systems offline and no boost capability for 30 seconds to allow pirates to 'make demands' and encourage dialogue. Of course wings would need a delayed drop in too. Anyway this is for a different thread I'm sure.
Yes, and you get to do it to the Griefer in the hangar. You make tele-presence and go sabotage his ship.
This is a very interesting statement !
So you in a one sentence post reject the social values that more or less has build the societies that most of the developed world embrace now?
Very interesting standpoint indeed!!
You, probably reject those values, being able to do it in the embrace that shields your rights? This is not even an anarchistic standpoint, but a nihilistic standpoint.
I will not argue on the basis of a "one liner" argument, but a statement that simply rejcts on the basis of " I disagree" is hardly substantive and not worthy your previous posts.
Whatever my opinion and OP's post your reject is not valid.
Cheers Cmdr's
More occasions than you care to remember?
So, what colour IS the boat-house at Hearford?
Great movie that Ronin ain't it!!
I dont know what deceased David Hume is up to, neither does anybody else!
What I do know that the thought lines of philosophers have been moved, because of how society moves. Many philosophers often quoted live in an age where they could not conceive a society we have today, and the impact those societies face by education, skills, the internet and global media. As previously posted, most of us debating this sit well chaired in the security of our First Nation shelters, I being a Scandinavian, certainly do.
Rejecting one ism has to be substituted for another ism in order for society to survive.
Anarchies are not really fun or constructive, take your pick and go there, remember your flak jacket.
Much of this debate reminds me of the 70 ties debates in Paris, when the left wing left all credibility on the floor of rejectionism, and in the wake created the ultimate weapon of nihilism: Bader- Meinhof or Rote Armee. What came of it, nothing but more limits on personal freedom. In my opinion they rank among Pol Pot and Hitler as "People seducers". Ultimately they still stand as heroes of some on the left, believe it or not.
Old age is both a curse and a advantage if you are remotely intelligent, you can only give so much, but predict far more woes to come.
At least George Orwell put his body where his mouth was. Therefore my Avatar.
Cheers Cmdr's
Been there done that
It is a pleasure to hear Hume used. Don't get that much nowadays. But we needn't revert to Kant, we can go back to Hume for whom sentiments for the well spring of moral philosophy and our ideas about the sentiments, duly tested empirically, manifest themselves in values such as empathy, fairness and the like.
Maybe you had something else in mind? Love to hear it.
Last edited:
Epistemological and moral relativism have been debunked over and over. This is not to imply cause and effect are not important. But it sounds, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are posing the fact/value dichotomy.
Sill, one can't correct relativism's persistence on an internet spaceship forum so easily!
More to the point of this thread on griefers, it is broadly understood that games/sims/virtual worlds encode (no pun intended) certain values, for good or ill, in how they are designed. Those who play such things bring their values into the mix. Together this nexus of values impacts not only one's own activities, but our interactions with each other. The bigger the sandbox, the more scope for value-laden interaction.
The Fuel Rats serve as a great example. Elite allows players to help each other in certain respects. Refueling is one of these activities. And a great group of people with pro-social values have organized to help people out.
A related aspect with respect to griefers is that pilots want better mechanics alongside a karma system that would allow them to self-police the community. A friend or foe system for instance.
Last edited:
I agree pirating needs some love. And I respect those that pirate but do not grief (or mine salt). Still, I'm unclear why you think the term griefing is wrong. Did I miss something?
Being a psychopath should be a career.
I've read some zany stuff in this forum but this is up there.
- - - Updated - - -
Dude ... we do this all the time in language. Traffic was murder today. The exam was torture. Cutthroat galaxy.
Hmmm... Certainly career is not the correct description.
However, being a psychopath in game should certainly be an option. And then you find out that society doesn't actually like psychopaths, and that you are severely limited in what you can do when you have this mindset...
Which why I never purchased those.
Being a psychopath should indeed be an option. And I do believe implemented well, this could be an interesting playing style for some.
I have heard; i tried x, x was boring. Tried y, y was boring. So now I just kill anything that moves. That now could have some interesting consequences. Gaming is dealing with restrictions.
Actually those of us who live in societies governed by the rule of law and a generally agreed upon code of social conduct are not subject to the principle of survival of the fittest, as Darwin would be the first to say. Others have taken his ideas and used them to advocate Social Darwinism, as you seem to be doing here. It's a deeply unpleasant philosophy which I'd urge you to reject.
Sure you are. The definition of fitness merely conforms to the environment.
You survive by not stepping too far out of line too often.